Parker's Adm'x v. Nolan
| Decision Date | 01 January 1872 |
| Parties | PARKER'S ADMINISTRATRIX v. C. NOLAN AND OTHERS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
1. When personal property has been sold with warranty of title, and the purchaser is sued for the property by a third party, the seller has the right to intervene and defend the suit.
2. A general assignment as error that the court below erred in the charge to the jury, when the charge is an elaborate one, is too vague and indefinite to demand much consideration. The particular matter complained of should be specifically pointed out by the assignment.
3. Previous to her marriage with one P., since deceased, the intervenor owned a stock of cattle, branded in her own peculiar brand. After the marriage, P. recognized the stock as her separate property, by having the brand recorded as her brand, and by repeated declarations that the stock was her property; and he also branded the increase of the stock in her brand. Held, that these facts evidenced an intention on the part of P. to donate to his wife all the interest he might have in the increase; and this it was competent for him to do, unless he did so for a fraudulent purpose.
APPEAL from Harris. Tried below before the Hon. James Masterson.
The facts are sufficiently indicated in the opinion of the court.
W. P. Hamblin, for the appellant.
Crank & Wilson, for the appellees.
The appellant, as the administratrix of Ed. Parker, deceased, brought this suit against the appellee, Nolan, for the value of a certain stock of cattle, claimed as the property of the estate of her intestate, which he is charged to have taken possession of and converted to his own use. The defendant below answered by a general denial, and by special answer, setting up the fact that the stock of cattle claimed by the plaintiff was never the property of Ed. Parker, and is not now the property of his estate; but that the same was the separate property of the wife of said Parker during his lifetime and at the time of his death, and that he, for a valuable consideration paid, had purchased the same from the widow of said Parker, now wife of D. W. Robinson. Subsequently Mrs. Robinson intervened, and, after adopting the answers of defendant Nolan, claimed that the stock of cattle sued for and the brand upon the same, were her separate property before her marriage with said Parker, and that they continued to remain so until she sold the same to said Nolan; that Parker, during his lifetime, always recognized said stock and brand as her separate property.
The plaintiff below excepted to the intervention of Mrs. Robinson and her husband, for several...
To continue reading
Request your trial